Azsy

Have i told you about our lord and savior Rust?

Anyways, https://github.com/tokio-rs/loom is used by any serious library doing atomic ops/synchronization and it blew me away with how fast it can catch most bugs like this.

This is definitely part of the problem. But the fundamental flaw is the departure from simplicity.

The solution is to have a processor that is so simple that it cant do more then what you expect, and building the tools to make the unexpected stand out.

However, there is a bigger market for a processor with 3 extra layers of root access to ensure your boss can spy on you and Disney&Co really want this to be the norm.

The problem with Ivermectin studies is that people will actually review them, so no academic can build a reputation on fraudulent data. Since there is no way to fake thousands of data point, now expensive research studies and clinical trials are getting done, all the research studies that get done will be of higher budget and subject to being called "basic science"

How about just properly reporting and studying the actual facts that some scientists will just make shit up, publication bias exists, and they can draw the wrong conclusions, like that one on Ivermectin?

P.S. I would be happy if Ivermectin turned out to work, but statistically you expect a few false positives to emerge from doctors in the field doing small studies that agree and appear to point to a cure. If Ivermectin was as effective as say, antihistamine pills, you would get a flood of agreement.

What ever the pros and cons are here... What the ** does this mean?

> Name , Email > Remain updated, we'll email you when it is available.

Why do this? Should i read that the format isn't ready? Is there going to be a mailing list of format enthusiast? Are you planning on releasing a V2022 next year and every year? More use-case specific derivatives?

All a format needs is 3 short examples, a language definition, and a link to an implementation.

Everything else lowers my expectation and its appeal.

Not medical condition, but your state of mind. The goal is to sell others the option to change your mind.

Everybody keeps getting surprised at how seemingly irrelevant data points can be used to segment/profile people with a shockingly high accuracy. It seems the only requirement is scale.

Obviously the top comment is dumb, but please keep on doing this.

Nobody is going to be happy if you hire someone who knows rust.

> "As a shortcut for filtering out new people and ideas, i will filter them on the most annoying person that has tried them".

At least your partially honest with how many divergent ideas someone working with you is allowed to have.

Work-obsessed lunatics are like that even without 'unreasonable' amounts of profits.

Greed-obsessed lunatics is a different subset ( with overlap ) but play a very different role in societies.

Your view of innovation on The Continent is likely 10% true and 90% PR. You just don't think about innovations as European because we don't put faces on companies.

They are not similar at all.

We know its possible to have a fusion reactor, we would just have to dump enough mass together to build a sun. Hopefully we can make it more cost effective.

There isn't a natural phenomena that solves a problem by encoding it and (ab)using quantum physics.

I've always seen it the other way around.

We can keep solving the engineering challenges, but the universe might simply not allow us to get a return on investment with every additional qubit.

I think you're getting the FOMO the wrong way around. Im pretty sure an average HN reader understands a lot more about NFT then the average NFT owner.

Bitcoin was technically interesting. Whatever your stance on all the negatives in the real world, everybody agrees its elegant in theory. It combined problems to create a solution. That's what real innovation looks like.

NFT's as 'investments' are a scam. Claiming Git commit hashes as property is not valuable, innovative, or game-changing. From the bottom to the top of the pyramid its people who are salty they didn't make more money in 'crypto' and are afraid of missing out twice in their lives.

This is awesome, but I got some bad news for this guy:

"If 22 students can design and build a vehicle like this in one year, then I’m sure companies could as well."

22 motivated smart people, guided by profs, with likely a lot of goodwill from manufacturers, are putting in free labor/overtime into a project with no need for profit or even a business-case.

That's not what companies do. But its good to see universities do it.

Here are a couple of more reasons beside those mentioned:

> Internet dopamine is a huge brain-drain

> The world is far more complex now, i.e. were having to either clash with older systems/ideas or try updating legacy systems.

> Age distributions show many more old people who usually want things to stay similar.

The market you compete in is the market your users imagine you offer similar solutions. Not the market of how you describe yourself.

Docker's features usually include "its easier to create and maintain a system".

That Nix does this different and better doesn't matter when a user is just looking to solve that one problem.

At that moment, for that user, Nix is just a fancy config manager with one click deploy features and competing with docker.

Nobody here seems to be focused on the specifics of the case. But i think moving on would leave a great opportunity to re-evaluate corporate SE choices.

At the very least we can agree its a good thing that the dev was able to fork/re-implement the tool with the given API.

But for me it raises the larger question. How useful is this form of software engineering management?

The tool is relativity simple enough to re-implement ( Which is a good thing ), but at the same time an entire team/governance structure was put in place to act out a set of motions, without pushing what is possible.

To be blunt, it sounds miserable to have to work like that.

At the root is the question: "Do we make it more complex" or "Do we do try it 3 times".

The carmakers have been making the wrong call for the past decades.

One of their suppliers has eclipsed their impact on society, marking one of the first times in something like ~70 years that things didn't bend over to meet their needs.

----

And before you ask. Yes i would rather have a pace-maker with triple redundancy and thrice redesigned.